WI: STS-107
- Thread starter Ming777
- Start date
Bearcat
Banned
If it misses, NASA keeps rolling the dice with the shuttle one finally gets hit.
And the video was seen before reentry. Strangely, no one thought it was that serious. Which is crazy - KE is 1/2 mass * velocity squared. I don't care how light it is, if it hits at supersonic speed, you ought to be worried.
In the event, it wasn't until the accident was recreated on the ground, firing a similar piece of foam at a section of carbon-carbon leading edge wing structure, shattering it like a shotgun blast, that the light really came on. Supposedly, there were gasps of dismay and shock at how bad it was.
So in the case of B: that's OTL, sadly.
This kind of thing had happened on an earlier shuttle mission, the number escapes me right now. The tip of one of the SRBs broke off and hit the underside of the shuttle. Luckily it hit in the one place where the shuttle could take it, right below the main antenna which was turned to slag. And there was a lot of concern about the event at the time. They had camera footage from the SRMS, ground control said it was ok while the crew was freaking out. Turns out they video was turned into garbage when it was downlinked. The crew asked for defense assets to look at it, but were denied.
So yeah, if it misses it's only a matter of time until another shuttle is lost. Well, I guess they could get very lucky, but that's not likely.
And if someone sounds the alarm, which probably happened, higher ups shoot it down. Columbia still dies.
So yeah, if it misses it's only a matter of time until another shuttle is lost. Well, I guess they could get very lucky, but that's not likely.
And if someone sounds the alarm, which probably happened, higher ups shoot it down. Columbia still dies.
A) ISS completed sooner and with more and better modules (Centrifuge, Hab, Crew Return Vehicle). For more information, here's a link to a list of cancelled Shuttle missions. There's a section for ones lost because of STS-107. This might not give Bush an opening for the Vision for Space Exploration, but I'm sure someone else might have, or NASA would develop a replacement for the Shuttle. Besides, Shuttle is a flawed system. Another Shuttle could disintegrate later.
B) Rescue in LEO is possible. You can send up one Shuttle, with a skeleton crew of two, to rescue Columbia's crew. The idea before ISS was to have two Shuttles grapple together in space, and have the crew spacewalk over. Two would go in the EMU suits, and the rest would have to settle for the "Rescue Ball," an airtight ball with .33 cubic meters of space. It would be a media event for NASA, and if it's successful, would be a PR victory. Though Columbia would be lost, possibly reentering over the Pacific.
Interestingly, NASA also had procedures for a possible repair in space. If it proved impossible to send up Atlantis for a rescue, an astronaut could have spacewalked onto the heatshield to repair the shield. While it would be difficult, all astronauts are trained for a similar exercise anyway, to reseal the propellant lines to the ET. However, the rescue with Shuttle Atlantis would probably be a better choice.
B) Rescue in LEO is possible. You can send up one Shuttle, with a skeleton crew of two, to rescue Columbia's crew. The idea before ISS was to have two Shuttles grapple together in space, and have the crew spacewalk over. Two would go in the EMU suits, and the rest would have to settle for the "Rescue Ball," an airtight ball with .33 cubic meters of space. It would be a media event for NASA, and if it's successful, would be a PR victory. Though Columbia would be lost, possibly reentering over the Pacific.
Interestingly, NASA also had procedures for a possible repair in space. If it proved impossible to send up Atlantis for a rescue, an astronaut could have spacewalked onto the heatshield to repair the shield. While it would be difficult, all astronauts are trained for a similar exercise anyway, to reseal the propellant lines to the ET. However, the rescue with Shuttle Atlantis would probably be a better choice.
Bearcat
Banned
The damage to Columbia though was too extensive. That ship was dead on impact, it just kept breathing until re-entry. The hole opened in that critical leading edge site on the wing was just too big for any jury-rigged replacement to hold. An in-space rescue, a damned hard thing to pull off, would have been their only hope.
Extremely difficult. Columbia was rather heavy, and difficult to move to the ISS's orbit. It was powered by fuel cells. Even with its Extended Duration pallet, it could do only a month in space. While the ISS had an attachment to provide power to Shuttle, I'm not sure when this was added, and whether Columbia would have been capable.
As for fuel, you'd need to move a significant amount of hypergollic propellant (Hydrazine and Nitrogen Tet) into orbit. Perhaps you can fly a mission to attach fuel tanks to Columbia, while also cutting off the wings and tail, and scraping off the thermal tiles. That might reduce weight enough to send her up. But I doubt they would bother with it. After the crew is withdrawn, Columbia wouldn't remain in orbit long enough for any such action.
If docking Columbia to ISS permanently is difficult, what you suggest is impossible. The fuel requirements to push a 70 tonne Shuttle (assuming wings, thermal protection, and tail are removed) is on the order of 300-400 tonnes of fuel.
Cook
Banned
Eagle you know better than that!
NASA could not have got another Shuttle up before supplies were exhausted on board Columbia. They didn’t have another shuttle prepped.
The old rescue in LEO is based around the original expectations of having a shuttle go up every week. In that situation you’d have a bird nearly prepped and ready to go well within the time frame of a rescue.
But that is not the rate that they are being sent up.
And before anyone asks; Columbia could not dock with the International Space Station, it couldn’t reach an orbit that high.
For feasible rescue or escape scenarios try running them by Jerry Pournelle. He has plenty of contacts in the shuttle program still.
Be polite.
http://www.jerrypournelle.com/
Exactly. And if NASA had the capability to put that sort of mass in orbit in one go, they wouldn't be fiddling around with space shuttles in the first place.
An ISS equivalent would be put together in a couple of flights,
Couldn't you just give it a push in the moons direction, and then let it crash to the ground?
Well, it's somewhat logical. If I were looking it, green-field, I would assume the foam was going about the same speed as the shuttle when it peeled off. In that case, it shouldn't be going very fast, no more than a few tens of miles per hour, relative to the shuttle's wing when it strikes. Well, that's probably about the same as birdstrikes, and the foam mass is probably similar to large birds. I find it hard to believe that the wing wasn't engineered to be at least somewhat resistant to bird strikes. So you could go, okay, it shouldn't be that much of a danger--hey, the *engines* are probably more dangerous! Of course, that wasn't true, and I haven't looked at it in detail.
But I agree with you about option A (or rather, until something else nasty hits). No way the Shuttles are going to be living out their "extended" lifespans, I'm afraid (that is, the old projections that they could keep flying until 2030 or so).
@Cook: Well, Columbia was carrying an EDO pallet and Spacehab modules, so it does have a longer than normal duration, and if they decide to launch a rescue they will certainly be trying to maximize that, as well. Still, very very marginal.
Cook
Banned
Columbia was only able to reach Low Earth Orbit and a very low orbit at that. Unlike the latter shuttles it could not reach the orbit of the International Space Station.
RMcD94, please read the link below before Polish Eagle and Truth is Life have a meltdown, it will explain a few basics about orbits.
http://www.braeunig.us/space/orbmech.htm
Cook
Banned
I sent that question to a few people with links to NASA back when it happened; Could Columbia (a) have docked with ISS or (b) stayed up long enough to get another STS up or a (c) Russian Proton up there and had it confirmed; (a) couldn’t reach it’s orbit and (b) and (c) would never have been ready in time.
Columbia was only able to reach Low Earth Orbit and a very low orbit at that. Unlike the latter shuttles it could not reach the orbit of the International Space Station.
RMcD94, please read the link below before Polish Eagle and Truth is Life have a meltdown, it will explain a few basics about orbits.
http://www.braeunig.us/space/orbmech.htm
Oh yes...until I read your post, and went back and reread his post, I was thinking he was referring to the much more sensible procedure of braking the Shuttle and letting it reenter "naturally". That at least has some basis in actual procedure
I don't think I'll pull out the celestial mechanics *quite* yet, though (if only because, ah, *you* did that)
Cook
Banned
I was amazed that after Columbia NASA etc spent tens of millions developing a compound that would stiffen the foam so that it wouldn’t break off on launch, only to have it break off again on the very next launch!
Meanwhile a group at an SF convention had worked out that a Kevlar Condom for the External Tank could eliminate the problem completely and would cost less than $10 Mill per launch!
How does the song go: “If it weren’t for fuckin’ NASA we’d at least have walked on Mars…”
Meanwhile a group at an SF convention had worked out that a Kevlar Condom for the External Tank could eliminate the problem completely and would cost less than $10 Mill per launch!
How does the song go: “If it weren’t for fuckin’ NASA we’d at least have walked on Mars…”